TIER-1

  Shubham Budhiraja [1] Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com , Tel: 011-45059142, M: 9654055315 Trust A & Trust B & Company C took loan from the Bank wherein CD given corporate guarantee. The Bank took action under SARFESI, DRT, HC and then IBC against CD. NCLAT remand the matter to NCLT to decide afresh because Bank seems to doing forum shopping to build pressure of recovery. Recovery is not aim of IBC [2] .   (I)                  The Bank is involved in forum shopping to the multiple ‘Courts/Tribunals’ just to harass the ‘Guarantor’ as it has moved the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta at Calcutta to coerce the trust into paying of its debts and involving the Appellant in time consuming and expensive litigation at the behest of this concerned branch of the Bank.   (II)                It is a settled law that th...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   ABC Limited undergone CIRP and moratorium ordered. The entire data of the company was stored in Cloud storage under administration of CEO. Mr. A, resolution professional, failed to make payment of cloud services and thus entire data got erased. It was held that Mr. A is guilty of violation of code cloud is an essential service to keep the data alive and corporate debtor as going concern. In addition to this, non-filling of section 19 application by Mr. A on non-cooperation by the management/directors is a violation of the code [2] .   (I)                  Section 14 of the Code read with regulation 32 of the CIRP Regulations implies that essential services to the CD include information technology services.   (II)                The status quo cannot be construed as CIRP has been h...

    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...